Dave Crane posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on
Thu, 29 Dec 2005 12:48:34 -0500:
>> because net.lo is not usefull for a system that provides services.
>> for example running a ssh server for net.lo is kinda silly :)
>
> Maybe we should all remove the localhost line from /etc/hosts if
Or maybe its should be left to the app. adding RC_NET_STRICT_CHECKING would
have other consequences. One size does not fit all here. If net.lo is the
only thing that satisfies net on a given system and the process doesnt have a
problem attaching to that (as I just verified with both sshd and ap
Hi,
Dave Crane wrote:
because net.lo is not usefull for a system that provides services.
for example running a ssh server for net.lo is kinda silly :)
Maybe we should all remove the localhost line from /etc/hosts if it's silly.
You could, but GNOME won't be happy. Silly, isn't it? ;)
Mayb
> because net.lo is not usefull for a system that provides services.
> for example running a ssh server for net.lo is kinda silly :)
Maybe we should all remove the localhost line from /etc/hosts if it's silly.
Maybe /etc/fstab should be /etc/conf.d/filesystems?
> > I'm asking this because last we
On Thursday 29 December 2005 16:58, Lorenzo Milesi wrote:
> I've a simple question, not really AMD64 specific: why net.lo does not
> provide "net"?
because net.lo is not usefull for a system that provides services.
for example running a ssh server for net.lo is kinda silly :)
> I'm asking this bec
Hi
I've a simple question, not really AMD64 specific: why net.lo does not
provide "net"?
I'm asking this because last week at home I couldn't run apache2
because I didn't have an interface up but lo. But this is silly,
because I could still use apache2 locally!
Am I wrong? Is my system wrong?
th
